Heck, no, I am not suggesting anything. I am stating as fact that you are a very close minded person, more close minded than any IDer on here.
This thread started with a statement:
“The probability of a protein forming by chance would be 1064 [10 with 64 zeros after it] to 1!”
You, instead of refuting that or proving it to be untrue, posted your typical non-sequitur, which is both irrelevant and insulting:
“It is gratifying that so many religious people take an interest in science.
Now if only they would learn something about it...”
Wow, kids, there’s some science for you.
“And to date there is no scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.”
That is incorrect, ridiculously so. In fact much of what ID teaches is exactly that: the inability of evolution theorists to adequately explain a number of phenomena, including the mathematical anomaly which opened this thread. I doubt you have read “Darwin’s Black Box”, or having read it, closed your mind to its implications. Instead you and the other Evos try to divert the discussion by pretending all you opponents are young earthers, or want to impose religion on science, or some other bilge like that.
So as Heinlein said and you are a rather good example of:
“Belief gets in the way of learning.”
Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal." Click on my profile page for more guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum.
These mathematical projections are useless if the factors are not correctly modeled.
It is common to see mathematicians calculate the odds of all sorts of events as next to impossible; but does evolution actually work in that manner?
Evidence suggests it does not.
Here is an example of two ways of looking at the evidence. You need to roll 25 dice and come up with all sixes. Pretty huge odds against that, eh? Never happen in hours or even days of rolling dice, eh?
Well what if evolution rolls all the dice and keeps the sixes, rolling only those which are not sixes. You'd end up with all sixes in a very short time.
With these two ways of looking at the problem mathematicians who come up with the huge odds are choosing the first method, while evolution works with natural selection--much more akin to the second.
Here is an online lecture that explains it quite well:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
I shouldn't have to explain all of these things. The information is out there, but creationists just choose to ignore it.